The state of the union

Little sign of a reset that I could see. The speech
emphasized jobs and the economy over healthcare reform, but that would
have made sense even if the political landscape had not shifted. As for
the poll numbers, as for Massachusetts, they might never have happened.
He mentioned Scott Brown's victory only obliquely, and in way that
denied it any significance.

I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is
clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we
still need to govern.

He conveyed almost no sense that the country was sending him a
message and that he was paying attention. He shuffled priorities-but
goals and methods had not changed. The tone was uncompromising and
often combative. "We don't quit. I don't quit." If you admire tenacity,
there was a lot to like.

He followed James Carville's bad advice in Monday's FT, dwelling at length on his poisoned inheritance. (On CNN, Carville said the speech was wonderful.)

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office.

True, that massive deficit is largely due to the Bush tax cuts-only
part of which, however, Obama intends to reverse. The tax cuts Obama
intends to retain belong to him, and so does the corresponding part of
the deficit. But the point is: who cares? Carville is wrong. What does
it matter who caused the problem? Obama's job is to solve it.

He called for a bipartisan fiscal commission to look into the
matter. He said this must not be a way to kick the issue down the road.
That is what it would be, of course. He offered little in the way of
recommendations on long-term spending cuts or tax increases-no mention
of fundamental tax reform. The proposed temporary freeze on
discretionary spending (less than a fifth of the budget) is trivial,
little more than a gesture. Achieving fiscal sustainability requires
presidential leadership, a national debate on taxes and spending, and
bipartisan action. Americans have grown accustomed to demanding more in
public services than they are willing to pay for, and the gap is now
enormous. Obama let all this slide.

In a way, he let health reform slide too-not just by pushing it way
down the running order, but by conspicuously failing to propose, much
less champion, any way out of the current impasse. We have to get this
done, he said, but he did not say what or how. Even now, his position
seems to be: "Just give me something to sign." As for making the case
to a public that remains, at best, unconvinced, all he had was the
usual stories about the injustices of the present system. They are good
stories, but they are too familiar. They have not worked, and they
aren't going to now.

It was a highly partisan speech, despite the occasional obligatory
reference to the need to work together. Nancy Pelosi was loving it
throughout, except for the partial spending freeze.

He criticized Democrats not for over-reaching, but for being wimps.

I would remind you that we still have the largest
majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems,
not run for the hills.

He criticized the other side for being purblind obstructionists.

[I]f the Republican leadership is going to insist that
sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in
this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just
saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not
leadership.

Fair points, you might say. Still, the whole thing came over more as
an attempt to restore the Democrats' energy and morale, while cracking
a few jokes at the Republicans' expense, than as a plea for moderation,
compromise and co-operation. I'll be surprised if independent voters
were impressed.

The weirdest paragraph was this:

Our administration has had some political setbacks this
year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing
that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across
this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going - what keeps
me fighting - is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of
determination and optimism - that fundamental decency that has always
been at the core of the American people - lives on.

One could spend a while untangling that. Are we supposed to
empathize with Obama for the setbacks he has suffered at the hands of
voters-and admire his resilience in the face of these misfortunes? It
is as though losing political support and an election or three is not a
judgment on the administration's performance: it is an accident, an
injustice even, akin to somebody losing his job. But Obama will carry
on, just as America's people will carry on, because he is righteously
determined to ignore the voters' opinion.